Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-05T16:49:59.690Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

14 - Planning and prioritization in modeling and simulation

from Part V - Planning, management, and implementation issues

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 March 2013

William L. Oberkampf  and
Christopher J. Roy
Christopher J. Roy
Affiliation:
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Get access

Summary

In Chapter 2, Fundamental concepts and terminology, a summary discussion was given concerning an integrated view of verification, validation, and prediction. This chapter will discuss in detail Element 2, Planning and prioritization of activities, as shown in Figure 14.1. The topic of this chapter could be summarized as: given the wide range of activities dealing with modeling and simulation, how does one allocate resources to best achieve the goals of the project? Here, we are interested in dealing with the perspective of the management responsibilities for a large-scale, project-oriented activity as opposed to a research effort or general capability development of a commercial software package. Our discussion applies to projects within both industry and government. We emphasize engineering system projects, but the discussion also applies to the analysis of natural systems, e.g., underground storage of radioactive wastes, global climate change, and transport of contaminants or chemical agents due to atmospheric winds. The system of interest could be a new or proposed system in the design phase, an existing system that is being considered for modification or upgrade, or analysis of a system as it presently exists.

Methodology for planning and prioritization

For large-scale projects, planning and prioritization (P&P) are major activities that require a significant investment in time, money, and specialized personnel talent. Although we are primarily concerned with P&P in V&V and prediction, we comment here on the importance of P&P in large-scale projects for the development of an M&S capability. Depending on the type of organization developing the capability, it can be challenging for management to assemble the personnel with the needed talent and interest in P&P. For example, if a large-scale M&S project arrives in the midst of ongoing computational development activities, it can be difficult for management and staff to change pre-existing viewpoints, traditions and ingrained habits that are no longer appropriate, and possibly even very detrimental, to the goals of the new project. Needed changes can be particularly onerous to affect in a research or government organization.

Type
Chapter
Information
Verification and Validation in Scientific Computing , pp. 673 - 695
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Boughton, B., Romero, V. J., Tieszen, S. R., and Sobolik, K. B. (2003). Integrated Modeling and Simulation Validation Plan for W80–3 Abnormal Thermal Environment Qualification – Version 1.0 (OUO). SAND2003–4152 (OUO), Albuquerque, NM, Sandia National Laboratories.
Boyack, B. E., Catton, I., Duffey, R. B., Griffith, P., Katsma, K. R., Lellouche, G. S., Levy, S., Rohatgi, U. S., Wilson, G. E., Wulff, W., and Zuber, N. (1990). Quantifying reactor safety margins, Part 1: An overview of the code scaling, applicability, and uncertainty evaluation methodology. Nuclear Engineering and Design. 119, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charette, R. N. (2005). Why software fails. IEEE Spectrum. September.CrossRef
Dorner, D. (1989). The Logic of Failure, Recognizing and Avoiding Error in Complex Situations, Cambridge, MA, Perseus Books.Google Scholar
Flowers, S. (1996). Software Failures: Management Failure: Amazing Stories and Cautionary Tales, New York, John Wiley.Google Scholar
Galin, D. (2003). Software Quality Assurance: From Theory to Implementation, Upper Saddle River, NJ, Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
Hanson, R. G., Wilson, G. E., Ortiz, M. G., and Grigges, D. P. (1992). Development of a phenomena identification and ranking table (PIRT) for a postulated double-ended guillotine break in a production reactor. Nuclear Engineering and Design. 136, 335–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karolak, D. W. (1996). Software Engineering Risk Management, Los Alamitos, CA, IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
Kroeger, P. G., Rohatgi, U. S., Jo, J. H., and Slovik, G. C. (1998). Preliminary Phenomena Identification and Ranking Tables for Simplified Boiling Water Reactor Loss-of-Coolant Accident Scenarios. Upton, NY, Brookhaven National Laboratory.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NRC (1988). Acceptance Criteria for Emergency Core Cooling Systems for Light Water Reactors. U. S. N. R. Commission, U. S. Code of Federal Regulations. 10 CFR 50.
Pilch, M., Trucano, T. G., Moya, J. L., Froehlich, G. K., Hodges, A. L., and Peercy, D. E. (2001). Guidelines for Sandia ASCI Verification and Validation Plans – Content and Format: Version 2. SAND2000–3101, Albuquerque, NM, Sandia National Laboratories.Google Scholar
Rohatgi, U. S., Cheng, H. S., Khan, H. J., and Wulff, W. (1997). Preliminary Phenomena Identification and Ranking Tables (PIRT) for SBWR Start-Up Stability. NUREG/CR-6474, Upton, NY, Brookhaven National Laboratory.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saaty, T. L. (2001). Decision Making for Leaders – the Analytic Hierarchy Process for Decisions in a Complex World. 3rd edn., Pittsburgh, PA, RWS Publications.Google Scholar
Shaw, R. A., Larson, T. K., and Dimenna, R. K. (1988). Development of a Phenomena Identification and Ranking Table (PIRT) for Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena during a PWR LBLOCA. Idaho Falls, ID, EG&G.
Stepanek, G. (2005). Software Project Secrets: Why Software Projects Fail, Berkeley, CA, Apress.Google Scholar
Tieszen, S. R., Chu, T. Y., Dobranich, D., Romero, V. J., Trucano, T. G., Nakos, J. T., Moffatt, W. C., Hendrickson, T. F., Sobolik, K. B., Kempka, S. N., and Pilch, M. (2002). Integrated Modeling and Simulation Validation Plan for W76–1 Abnormal Thermal Environment Qualification – Version 1.0 (OUO). SAND2002–1740 (OUO), Albuquerque, Sandia National Laboratories.Google Scholar
Trucano, T. G., Pilch, M., and Oberkampf, W. L. (2002). General Concepts for Experimental Validation of ASCI Code Applications. SAND2002–0341, Albuquerque, NM, Sandia National Laboratories.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vose, D. (2008). Risk Analysis: a Quantitative Guide. 3rd edn., New York, Wiley.Google Scholar
Wiegers, K. E. (2003). Software Requirements. 2nd edn., Redmond, Microsoft Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, G. E. and Boyack, B. E. (1998). The role of the PIRT in experiments, code development and code applications associated with reactor safety assessment. Nuclear Engineering and Design. 186, 23–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, G. E., Boyack, B. E., Catton, I., Duffey, R. B., Griffith, P., Katsma, K. R., Lellouche, G. S., Levy, S., Rohatgi, U. S., Wulff, W., and Zuber, N. (1990). Quantifying reactor safety margins, Part 2: Characterization of important contributors to uncertainty. Nuclear Engineering and Design. 119, 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wulff, W., Boyack, B. E., Catton, I., Duffey, R. B., Griffith, P., Katsma, K. R., Lellouche, G. S., Levy, S., Rohatgi, U. S., Wilson, G. E., and Zuber, N. (1990). Quantifying reactor safety margins, Part 3: Assessment and ranging of parameters. Nuclear Engineering and Design. 119, 33–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×